Advanced digital cameras with automatic features are great for action, low light, and video. They are not that good for shooting spring flowers and other things that bloom in the spring. For me spring has arrived. My first California poppy bloomed today and I have early roses coming out. Half of my yard is fields of blooming Alyssum and other wildflowers. I record spring happenings like this every year.
Shots like the above are just far easier with manual cameras. I had to fiddle with the Sony A7iii to get the focus on the orange poppy and not the background. My iPhone absolutely refused to get sharp focus. But my almost 40 year old Olympus with manual focus only was completely simple. I have negative film in it so I know that the highlights will not get blown easily. But from past experience I know flowers tend to be about 1 stop over a center weighted meter. So I just set the Oly -1 stop. Put it on a little light tripod, took maybe 30 seconds to focus precisely on the flow and took the shot. Of course the disadvantage of film is you have to wait for it to be developed to see the results. So I can remember how I shot the photo I keep a photo log in my iPhone notes app.
Then I loaded a roll of Ektachrome into one of my Minolta 600si’s. Getting that set up was about twice as hard as the Olympus because the Minolta has auto focus and no manual focus aids in the viewfinder. But no menus to putz with so maybe 10 times easier than my full auto Sony A7iii.
Film. I have a bunch of film (maybe 25 rolls) left over from last year. None of it has expired. I just have not shot much of it lately because I have been too busy playing with my full frame Sony and iPhone. But now that spring has arrived there are all kinds of beautiful subjects that will be available and I want to use some of my older cameras. I have heard some disquieting news that Kodak Alaris is selling the film business. As I mostly use Kodak film I hope there will not be any problems with supply. Overall I like the look of Kodak film better than any other. I would have to say Ilford makes excellent black and white. The last roll I shot was Ilford 50 speed and it was just a great result. And Fuji has announced they are raising their film price 30% soon. So I don’t know how to read that. 30% + of their consumer film is not that much, but 30% on Velvia or Provia is a bunch. That would make Velvia about 20 bucks a roll and that is too much. The current price of $15 bucks is already too high. BUT.
BUT continued – if I had just used my film cameras this past year and my old Nikon D5500 and Sony HX80 it would have been far far cheaper than what I spent to get two full frame cameras. New full frame cameras and especially full frame camera glass that is good is soooooooo expensive it just makes my head swim. New full frame lenses are being introduced left and right by Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and a bunch of others. The latest for my Sony camera is a 135mm f1.8 – I am sure it is a great lens, but it costs $1,900 US dollars!!!! And it weights over 2 lbs (almost a kilo). Good grief Charlie Brown that is a lots of dough and very big and heavy. I have an Olympus 135mm f3.5. These sell for about $40 on eBay and it weighs about 8 oz. If I wanted I could get an Oly 2.8 for about $75. Or I could get a Minolta AF 135 2.8 that would work on my A7iii for about $140.
I have bought two Minolta lenses from eBay that are supposed to arrive tomorrow. 1. 100mm f2.8 AF macro. This lens is rated as about 9.5 on a scale of 1-10. I paid $220 for it including shipping. Condition is rated as mint. 2. Minolta 100-400 f4.5-6.3. I am curious to see how good this lens is. The reviews I read on it said it was good to excellent. I paid about $250 including shipping. Rated Excellent + condition. I have been thinking about getting this 100-400 for a while now but was trying to decide if I wanted to pony up the $2,500+ for the Sony new one. Then I tested the Minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6 that I have against my Sony 24-105 f4 I bought new a couple of months ago. I thought the Sony would blow it away. It did not. I shot some houses on a hill opposite out house that are about 2-3 miles away and the Sony and Minolta are about equivalent. I paid $32 for the Minolta lens about 2 years ago. Just before Christmas I paid $1,300 for the Sony. The Minolta lens is smaller and lighter than the shorter zoom Sony. The Minolta 100-400 I have coming is much smaller and far lighter than the new Sony 100-400mm.
I bought the 100mm 2.8 macro because spring is here. I have been using various 50-55mm lenses on my Sony and Minoltas and 50 & 135 on my Olympus bodies. The Minolta 100 has been rated as a great lens by a number of people including just last week the “Casual Photographer” blog. Ken Rockwell has raved about how good the lens is. So I am looking forward to it. 100mm in macro is just easier to use than 50mm macro. My Zeiss 55mm lens is excellent and I can get pretty close with it and then just crop the image. Hopefully the 100mm will be better. A Sony 90mm 2.8 macro is about $1,000.
Even though I keep thinking that I will get away from using any film I keep going back to using some. I like manual cameras. I like being able to set them quickly how I want them without having to delve into any deep menus. For landscape manual focus is fine. There is the problem of getting a good lab to develop, but that is solved easily by just paying more to a good one. Enough for now.
2018 was a big uproarious year in the image and video creation business. After going a couple of years with buying only new smartphones and a compact digital Sony I got caught up in all the changes and bought not one new full frame camera but two. And I also went back to the full sized iPhone after saying the smaller one was a perfect size. I also bought a new MacBook Pro.
Featured image above was taken with a Nikon D3200 in 2014 and edited in iPhoto
Early in 2018 I started using tripods again after years of mostly hand held. My flower photos improved doing that. I was bored after having my Nikon D5500 for 3 years so even though I really liked that camera I started looking for my next larger digital camera. I wanted to get a Nikon and wanted to get their upcoming mirrorless. But back in the spring of last year there were only rumors about when the new Nikon would be out and it looked like it might be the spring of 2019 before you could get one. So when Nikon sent me a low price on the D750, 24-120mm, and grip I bought one. I also got the Nikon 50mm f1.4 at the same time. Total for everything including tax and shipping was about $2,500.
After using the flyweight and very easy to use Nikon D5500 for several years when I got the D750 I did not like it at all. Too big and heavy. With the 24-120mm zoom on it the size seemed gargantuan compared to the D5500. It hurt my 71 year old right hand with a little arthritis. But I then got a Peak Strap and used the 50mm lens and the 750 started to grow on me. The controls of the Nikon D750 were easy to learn and very intuitive after having two crop body Nikons. The Peak strap was a big improvement over the strap that came with the camera. I only shot stills with the 750. For video I used my iPhone X. I also tried using some of the FX lenses on my D5500 DX Nikon body. The better lenses made the smaller Nikon a lot better. Images from the 5500 and either FX lens were very nearly the same as using the D750. On the other hand the 750 focused much quicker and the viewfinder was way better.
The Nikon D750 had buttons for most adjustments that were easy to find and when you needed to use the menu on the back screen it was obvious that Nikon had spent some time designing them to be intuitive. But what the D750 did not solve was washed out mid day full sun colors. Looking back on it now it is obvious that I should have stuck with the D750 longer and learned to improve this problem instead of jumping to the Sony system. I did not find out till later that using live view on the Nikon you could see a histogram before shooting. But I did use bracketing with the 750 and that worked well.
The full frame Nikon came with us on our summer motorhome trip and after a while I just got used to the size of it. The D5500 was still much lighter and easier to handle, but the D750 was OK.
My film photography in the first 6-7 months of 2018 suffered because I kept experimenting with different film stocks, using expired rolls, and using labs that were not great. This has now changed and I went back to using my preferred and unexpired film stocks plus two of the best labs and now my film shots look great.
We got back from our long summer trip in late August and by this time Nikon had set a date for intro of both their Z6 & 7. Sony was selling lots of A7iii and A7riii. After watching about 1,000 (exaggeration) you tube videos I decided in Oct to buy a Nikon Z7 or 6. I called George’s photo and then went down with the intention of buying a Z camera. While there I chickened out getting the new Nikon Z7 because it was expensive, new, and getting mixed reviews. I have a number of Sony-Minolta lenses that will adapt easily to the A7iii, and made the spit second fall back decision to get the Sony A7iii and 55mm f1.8 and not the Z7. Likely if the Z6 would have been available then I might have gone that way. I figured, “If you don’t like the Sony you can sell it. The price was not in the same range as the Z7 and the Sony was very very popular so no problem selling it.” The next day I got the Sony A7iii, LA EA4 Sony adapter, and Zeiss 55mm f1.8.
Right away after getting the Sony it was obvious that it was difficult to use and confusing. I had had 4 Sony compact cameras over the years so I knew a little about the Sony menu system.
I did find that the sony adapter worked well with the Minolta A mount glass. But while several of the Minolta lenses worked brilliantly on the film camera they were made for the Sony A7iii image quality with them was just not as good. Why, I suspect these lenses were developed for film and the A mount. They just don’t perform as well as when adapted. This is stated over and over again by Ken Rockwell in his blog kenrockwell.com which you should read. I agree with him.
Just before Christmas I bought the Sony G 24-105mm f4 lens for the A7. It works great, $1,300. I bought this as I liked the Nikon 24-120mm f4 and missed it’s abilities. This Sony is essentially the same but does not cut the corners just a bit at 24mm like the Nikon did. I only paid $500 for the Nikon and the construction quality seemed just as good. Plus the D750 was quite well weather sealed and the Sony A7iii does not seem to be.
The switch to Sony from Nikon was painless. I found willing buyers quickly for all of my Nikon gear. I sold the D750 and 24-120mm for very little less than I paid. But of course less the ebay sellers fee. The D5500 I used for 3 1/2 years and sold it with kit lens for around 60% of what I paid. The Sony HX80 sold for about 60% of what I paid and I only used it 1 1/2 years.
So what did I loose and gain by all of these transactions.
I gained eye auto focus.
I lost one camera I loved – D5500 and two I liked – Nikon D750 & Sony HX80 and gained one camera that is technically very competent that is growing on me a bit but so far I would have to say I only like it slightly.
If I had it to do over again I would go back to what I had.
Auto eye focus is not enough to make this worth it. One of my New Years 2019 resolutions is to get rid of GAS and use what I have now for the rest of the year. I will make two exceptions 1. Olympus introduces a full frame camera that follows what I like about the Olympus OM2n of small size, high capability, and everything you need and nuthin you don’t at a price I am willing to pay. 2. Nikon updates either the Z6 or D750 that fixes the obvious flaws in both bodies. And I can sell the Sony for enough to pay for one of these two exceptions. If neither of those two scenarios comes to pass I am going to live with what I have and improve my skills with that gear the complete year.
Expanding on my exceptions 1 and 2.
Olympus – I am completely perplexed as to why Olympus has not followed up on it’s fantastic OM series and introduce a system with a full frame sensor. The price of sensors has come down and I see no reason not to go with the advantages of a larger sensor for the same reasons I like full frame film cameras. I like the perspective I get from 35mm. I will not buy a camera with a small sensor like the micro 4 3rds.
Nikon Z6 or D750. The Z6 needs to get their auto focus to work as well as the 4+ year old D750 period! Why do I want to pay a lot of money for a camera today that is not at least as good as their 4 year old comparably priced 750? And for gods sake add another card slot. Preferably with SD cards. 750 to 760. I have never had an issue with a mirror or the F mount. To make the D760 really desirable the live view focus needs to be as good as regular view. And a touch screen. 4K video is obvious. I could live without the EVF if the back screen worked as fast as the Sony A7iii.
My second new years resolution is not to use expired film and to stick with the films and labs I know and trust. No cheeping out on bargain film or labs. And to shoot more film.
Apple XS Max upgrade from iPhone X. Meh. The iPhone X was a great great iPhone. The iPhone XS Max is slightly bigger and better.
MacBook Pro 15″ 2018 6 core 512 gb upgrade from 2013 MacBook Pro 13″ 2 core 256 gb. Meh. I have literally used the crap out of my old MacBook. It still works fine and I am using it to write this blog post. But I does show some of this heavy use in balkiness to start up sometimes. It is also much slower to start now than 3-4 years ago. But it is not slower to start than the new one.
Pros of the new MacBook –
Cons of the new MacBook
no variety of ports like the old one. This one really pisses me off. I delayed for two years getting a new MacBook because of this but finally caved because I need at least one reliable newer computer and wanted an Apple. Not only did they take away ALL the old style USB ports but the idiots removed the mag safe connector. They even obsoleted my Apple Thunderbolt screen so I had to buy a dongle for it. And no SD card slot. Something I used all the time with my old one. So now I am switching over to the new style connector. By the time I switch everything over it will be time for Apple to obsolete that connector too.
I really liked my older MacBook Pro. My favorite Apple product of all time. The new one I bought because I wanted to stick with Apple and I was worried about the age of my old unit. I would have rather bought a new old style MacBook with upgraded chips. Apple has made this device worse not better for me. The old style keyboard is better.
Conclusions. New is many times not better and sometimes worse. I have purposely used only photos from 2014 to show that with my old gear before I started spending a lot of money my shots turned out fine. I really liked my old Motorola Maxx smartphone. It worked well, it had some very slick features, and the battery lasted forever. I bought my first iPhone the 6S after the Moto and in many ways the Maxx was a better device. But now you cannot go back to 2014 because Motorola has been sold and they make just so-so phones compared to Apple.
Back in 2014 I used Apple iPhoto, iMovie, and Aperture. But then Apple obsoleted iPhoto and Aperture and gave us Photos. Photos is a better organizer and works with on line better, but the editing functions work poorly with any photo that was not taken with an iPhone. Or at least poorly compared to Lightroom. Now I am still stuck sorting back and forth between Apple Photos and Lightroom. And I also have to remember if I used Lightroom CC Classic or Lightroom CC. My real photo collection system in 2018 was more of keeping photos on local disks out of any software. And now I am going to go back and have prints made from my best photos of last year + 2017.
In this blog I have posted very good photos (or at least ones I like) from cameras up to 65 years old, film, digital, DSLR, smartphone, and compact. All worked just fine. The key to photography is the photographer and not the gear. And that is going to be the same in 2019 as it was in 2018.
Digital cameras today can give you very sharp clear images like the paintings of Jan Van Eyck. Of course you can use fast lenses to soften focus and give you some bokeh, but sometimes Claude Monet and his style of soft images might be a better choice.
Both the top photo and the above rose are similar subjects but the look is entirely different. In my opinion it is easier to get the softer image of Monet using older lenses and film.
Which of these photos do you like best. I like them both. The Sony did an excellent job of balancing exposure and white balance and the film shot is the best one I have been able to get of this miniature Christmas tree with a lighted Christmas tree in the background. I think in the case of these two shots the tools used were needed for this result. I think to get the top shot with the Olympus camera you would need Portra 400 and the camera on a tripod. Plus you would need a flash with a cap over it to diffuse the light, which I don’t have. The Olympus does have TTL flash so that would be similar to the Sony. The Oly does not have steady shot so to get this shot hand held might be hard.
I tried getting the bottom film photo with several digital cameras. I was not able to get anything this good with the newer stuff. My point here is that to get good photos you need a variety of tools and you need to keep shooting. Keep trying and you will get some results you like. I am not telling you to spray and pray. What I am saying is to set up photos often and you will get some results you like.
Black and white adds a layer of mystery to draw you in.
Both of these shot with iPhone XS Max.
Do you like the black and white or color best? Of these two I prefer the black and white because it removes us more from reality than the color. The color shot is more like a Xerox of the scene. I like the black and white pulling us closer to the photo to see if the white spot is the moon or just a light. And the black and white adds a bit of sidewalk and street to pull us in. But I prefer color on the stained glass window. And I like color on the yellow street sign. Would these two pictures have been better with film. No doubt in my mind that both the color and black and white would have been better with film. Film adds a layer of distance between you and the objects. There is the analog chemical film process to make the image, and then the film image is scanned to make it a digital of the film. What is very nice is that the scanning is a Xerox of the image the film created. So all of what the film renders of the scene comes out in the scan. Using film and then doing a high quality scan is a great combination that adds the film’s rendering and then when you digitize it you can do some editing digitally instead of working in a darkroom. The best of both Worlds.
If you want clear clean sharp renders of the scene then digital is the best way to do it. But on the other hand if you want to create an impressionist version of the scene I suggest film and then scanning. Old lenses also help to give the impressionist look. Plus throw in some black and white. Every time I shoot a roll of black and white I always think that I should shoot some more black and white. I generally do not get that same feeling when shooting black and white digitally.
This year has had one significant introduction after another in new camera bodies, systems, and film. Sony has introduced the A7riii and A7iii. Both mostly great and maybe the greatest full frame mirrorless cameras of today. Nikon has put forward the A7 & A6 full frame mirrorless designs with new lenses. So far to me this looks like the biggest contender of the Sony’s. Canon EOSR. A great camera, except, no ibis and big crop on video at 4K. Both Nikon and Canon have only one data card slot. This is a big omission. Fuji XT3. Another great camera, but crop sensor and no ibis. Fuji again with the R version of their medium format camera. This looks like a great landscape camera but lacks features that are in the full frames. Panasonic now is talking about their S line for full frame mirrorless, but full specs are not available. And then Zeiss and their ZX1. Complete specs are not available and neither is the price. As I said in my previous post I love this ZX1 concept. I want one. But I want one based on specs that I imagine but are not confirmed yet along with the price.
I would like to buy a new full frame mirrorless camera. I currently have a Nikon D750 DSLR and would like something smaller and lighter plus has an electronic viewfinder. Of the ones above that we actually know the specs and price of I would say the Sony’s and the Nikon’s are the closest to what I want. But here is the thing, I am not sure I like either enough more than the Nikon D750 to switch. I like have tried the A7riii and did not like the way it felt in my hand and thought the menu-control system to be difficult. I do like the dual SD cards. The Nikon Z7’s are just now getting shipped to their buyers. So far I have heard good feedback. But I don’t really want to switch to XQD cards. My three computers all have SD card readers but not XQD. So dongle time would be the case with the Nikons. And I like the dual card slots I have on the D750. I don’t like the fact that Nikon is charging a lot more for a 50mm f1.8 than and F mount 50mm f1.4. Actually I don’t like that a lot.
Or for that mater Nikon charging 50% more for the Z mount 35mm f1.8 than the F mount f1.8. Even the 24-70 f4 is more than I recently paid for the F mount 24-120 f4.
And neither the Sony’s or the Nikon’s have settings adjustments for the all important aperture, shutter speed, and ISO dials. Ones I can see at a glance like Zeiss and Fuji. The Sony and Nikon do have quick change on aperture and and shutter speed but not in the elegant way Zeiss and Fuji do.
And then the Fuji XT3. What a great camera with dedicated settings for aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and exposure compensation. And it is a beautiful camera, far more so than the Sonys. And a bit prettier than the Nikons. Plus it is cheaper than any of the full frames. But no 35mm sensor. What were they thinking??? The whole World is going back to the best image size ever invented full frame 35mm and they stick with crop size? And no ibis to top it off. But I have to say the simplicity of the Fuji and quality of materials, and the smaller size have great appeal.
I have no experience with Canon cameras except that several of my friends and relatives have and like them. Most prominently my professional TV and Movie cameraman son who is about ready to go back to a Canon DSLR after having a Sony A7S for two years. His reason, “Canon has better colors”. And this is a person who uses $100,000 camera rigs in his work. So maybe when the Canon R is in the stores I will take a closer look. Right now I don’t like the one card slot of the Canon or the no ibis. Plus it is big unlike the Fuji. But Canon has an extremely good reputation so maybe more on it later.
Like Canon I have no experience with Panasonic. Their two full frame bodies look quite good, but no final specs or prices yet. So more to come on these two later.
Kodak Ektrachrome is finally shipping. After the unexpected Zeiss ZX1 this Kodak announcement was the most exciting of the German show. I like shooting with film. I like the look of the results I get from my old SLR cameras (4 of them with lots of lenses) and one very nice Voightlander rangefinder with a set of 3 lenses. On our summer trip this year I did not shoot as much film as I had planned as I bought the D750 just before the trip and was still experimenting with it. But one of the rolls I shot was Kodak Tmax 100. I used my Minolta 600si for this film and all of the shots turned out. I was being lazy and did not use any filters for the whole roll, which was a mistake. I should have used a yellow, orange, or red for daylight shots.
Both of these above shots were from this roll of Tmax. The second shot was a lean out the moving train shot with 100 speed film and an unstabilized lens. The camera was set to auto focus and worked perfectly. It has 3 auto focus points and not 500 like modern cameras.
The above 3 shots are from Portra 400 film that was about a year expired. All were shot on a 40 year old Olympus OM2n and 50mm f1.8. One of the best film SLRs ever made.
And the above three were from inexpensive Kodak Gold 200 that was expired two years. I used my second Olympus OM2n to shoot these. The Kodak Gold really did it’s job, but if I had it to do over again would have shot with fresh film. Keep in mind these were shot with a very simple old meter in the Oly and then put through medium priced developing and only mid range scanning (3000 x 2000).
So I am thrilled to be able to get Kodak Ektachrome fresh again. I fully expect that Kodak’s new formulation will be better than the old Kodak Ektachrome. This film is being made in the United States in Rochester New York and is shipping from the factory now. The new Ektachrome is the “natural” formulation and not the old “vivid” formulation as per an interview I watched yesterday from a Kodak spokesperson. Why am I thrilled? Slide film has punch you cannot get from negative film. And you can project slide film on a screen without electronics. One downside is reduced dynamic range. As you can see from the three color photos above, the Kodak Gold has tremendous dynamic range. I have already called one of the local camera shops to get an estimate as to when they are getting the film. Guess is second week in Oct.
If you cannot see the back LCD on your DSLR maybe it is not a good time to take pictures or video? Or you should stick to film that has huge room for bright highlights in full sun? 95% of my best digital outside photos or video are taken when it is not bright overhead sun. So instead of a new camera with EVF or reading the zebras to make sure your highlights are not blown you should just take your shots or video when the light is good? Even if you turn down the exposure on digital so you don’t blow your highlights in full sun you have to pull your shadows up so much that you get a lot of noise. The best digital cameras like a Nikon D850 only have about +2 stops of highlights before the pictures are unusable. The best film like Portra have about +4 stops. Many times when the photo is overexposed a stop when you try to improve it in post you just don’t get a good result even using raw.
The flower below was taken with a digital camera about an hour before sunset and mostly in the shade.
The shot below is what happens to many digital photos when taken at mid day.
On the other hand here is some film shot at mid day with full sun.
Right now you have a ton of people switching to buy mirrorless cameras from DSLRs to get an EVF. That way you can control your exposure better when you can’t see the back screen. My suggestion is that if you cannot see your back screen maybe your camera is telling you it is not a good time to be taking pictures.
Now if you are switching to mirrorless because you want to take more videos with your camera then I think that is a good reason. But if you are going to take mostly or all photos and not video there is no reason to ditch your DSLR or not buy a new one. Both Nikon and Canon offer very good DSLRs at modest prices. I have a several year old Nikon D5500 that takes sharp clear detailed photos and is half the price of a comparable mirrorless.
Two posts ago I put up one talking about taking a ton of camera gear with me on our current long extended trip. I wish I had not done it. If I had it to do over again I would take – 1. Cell phone of course. It is always with you. 2. Compact pocket camera with long zoom. About the same quality as a good cell phone but with the ability to optically zoom. 3. Digital changeable lens camera. 4. Changeable lens film camera. And if I was flying somewhere out of the USA I would leave the film camera at home.
Why? The number one most important rule in taking good photos or video is to know your camera. Lots of cameras means you never really get really familiar with them. This is really true of digital cameras, but also a bit true of film ones. Today even good smartphone cameras have many many options. It seems like every year more are added and they become more complicated. And my compact Sony pocket zoom has so many menu options that it is almost impossible to understand them all. On the other hand I have found Nikon DSLR cameras easier to figure out. And my D750 full frame digital is pretty simple if you are using raw.
What lead me to write this post was today when I was using my Olympus OM2n film SLR that I have owned for 38 years. I was in a public place and my dog was with me on a leash. I loaded up a roll of expired Ektachrome I had been saving for some Montana shots. The OM2n film loading is tricky. You need to make sure the film is loaded securely or you can think your film is going through when you cock the wind lever and it is slipping over the sprockets. I have leaned by past bitter experience that you need to look at the rewind winder when you cock the shutter to see that it moves a bit. If it does not the film is not moving. Today the rewind winder did not move. So I just opened the back and sure enough, loose film. Now with lots of leader out I got it loaded fine. Then when leaving the left side of my Peak strap came loose. The little black flexible string had fit through the break in the circle holder on the Olympus camera. Fortunately I caught the problem before my almost 40 year old camera was broken from falling.
If you use only one or two cameras then this sort of problems become rare. You know what to look for. Before the days of cell phone cameras I would say that you should only have one camera with you, but today you almost always have the cell phone one with.
As I said in the last post I was headed out to use a film camera (Minolta 600si + 24mm f2.8) to take shots of a western styled old town. I really had a good time and very much enjoy the fact that I got some really great photos. Of course I have not seen any of them yet except in my mind’s eye as they were film. Why was this really enjoyable?
I am now writing this post instead of editing my pictures.
The camera is absolutely a great high quality and easy to use film SLR.
I am currently have no regrets about what settings I did not get right for the pictures I shot.
I am confident that likely all film shots will give images and that some will be great.
A while back Ken Rockwell mentioned in his excellent extensive web site that a big advantage of film was that you did not spend your evenings after shooting during the day in front of a computer editing your shots. Boy was he right. After I go out and shoot for a day using a digital camera I edit them later in the day. This can be a short time if I used my iPhone. Or a long time if I shot raw and need to go through every one of them getting them to look their best.
Most 35mm film SLRs are really simple to use. Even my fully automatic Minoltas have no menus. All functions are operated with simple visual switches and buttons. Plus it is very easy to go full manual or semi manual if you want. Easy peasy no confusing crap like figuring out which of the choices I want to pick from either of my Nikon DSLRs. I do think about what film I should use for the shoot though. Today I mostly shot using Kodak TriX and then some with Kodak Ektar. I thought the subject would match those two films characteristics best. And I only took one lens, a 24mm f2.8. I took that because it lets you get close and still get a lot in the shot. Plus if people are around you don’t have to point right at them to include them in the shots. And at 24mm almost everything is in focus.
I have no regrets from my settings as I have not seen any of the results yet. In general I only change the meeter settings on the Minolta from spot to matrix or center weighted. And I usually go back and forth between A and P on the mode dial. The Minolta’s auto focus works so well with only 3 spots I almost never manual focus. But if I did want to manual focus the Minolta viewfinder is bright and better than either of my Nikon cameras viewfinders. Of course with a film camera the big setting you change is what film you use. But that comes from learning which you like for what subject.
When I shoot film, which is frequently, almost all the shots provide an image. If I use a good processor the quality of the images I get back improves a lot. Usually when I shoot 36 exposures I get back 36 usable shots. Mostly they need little editing or no editing unless the subject was in bad lighting.
WHY TRI-X AND EKTAR?
I like black and white film when I want to show shapes and and not be distracted by colors. And the subject was a western themed town and black and white suites that. I like Tri-X for it’s contrast and starkness. Tri-X will likely help this subject as it is mostly newer buildings made to look like the 1880’s. I think they will look more authentic with Tri-X. I shot a few photos with Ektar 100. This is my favorite outdoor color film when not shooting people. Ektar is OK with people but puts some red into their complexion unlike Portra which adds white. To me Ektar just makes most landscapes better. The colors pop. It is very fine grain. It loves the outdoor shots in the western USA. It is the king of red rock photography. Portra would have worked OK for this subject too. The slightly faded look would have added to the “old” theme of the town. Plus Portra is almost impossible to expose poorly. And several of the Fuji slide films would have worked well too.
My web site is about photography, RV ing, audio, gadgets and other things that interest me and I know something about.